DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to Applicant’s amendments filed on 01/15/2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for a rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Amendment Status
The present Office action is made with all previously suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-11, 13-16, and 21-25. Claims 12 and 17-20 are cancelled by the Applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 2021/0125907) in view of Hsieh (US 2017/0317029) in further view of Shih (US 2021/0090985).
Regarding claim 1, Huang shows (see, e.g., Huang: figs. 1A-1H, and 2) most aspects of the instant invention including a semiconductor device, comprising:
A substrate 121
A plurality of dies 110 attached to a first side of the substrate 121
A molding material 140/150 on the first side of the substrate around the plurality of dies 110
A first redistribution structure 220/221 on the second side of the substrate 121 opposing the first side
wherein:
A first redistribution structure 220/221 comprises dielectric layers (the multiple dielectric layers on top of each other form the structure 221) and conductive features 232 in the dielectric layers
The conductive features 232 comprise conductive lines and vias
Conductive connectors 215 attached to a first surface of the first redistribution structure 221 facing away from the substrate 121
Huang, however, fails (see, e.g., Huang: figs. 1A-1H, and 2) to specify that the conductive features 232 comprise dummy patterns isolated from the conductive lines and the vias. Hsieh, in a similar device to Huang, shows (see, e.g., Hsieh: figs. 15, and 22, and also par. [0060], [0064] – [0066]) conductive features 604 that are dummy metal patterns isolated from the conductive lines 106/138/146/154 and vias. Hsieh also teaches (see, e.g., Hsieh: figs. 15, and 22, and also par. [0060], [0064] – [0066]) that the dummy patterns are included to provide a more uniform metallization pattern to improve the planarity of various dielectric layers in which respective the metallization patterns 106, 138, 146, and/or 154 are disposed (see, e.g., Hsieh: par. [0061]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the dummy metal patterns of Hsieh in method of Huang, to provide a more uniform metallization pattern, and to improve the planarity of various dielectric layers in which the metallization patterns are disposed.
Huang in view of Hsieh fails (see, e.g., Huang: figs. 1A-1H, and 2, and also see, e.g., Hsieh: figs. 15, and 22) to show the first redistribution structure 220/221 contacting and extending along a second side of the substrate 121. Shih, in a similar device to Huang in view of Hsieh, shows that the first redistribution structure 710 is in contact and extends along the second side od the substrate 550. Shih further shows that the redistribution structure 710 is formed on the molding compound 550 and on the metal vias 510, and the redistribution structure 710 acts as a back-side (or PCB-side) RDL interposer (see, e.g., Shih: par. [0040]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the redistribution structure contacting and extending along the substrate of Shih, in the device of Huang in view of Huang, to act as a back-side (or PCB-side) RDL interposer.
Regarding claims 3, Huang in view of Hsieh in view of Shih shows (see, e.g., Huang: figs. 1A-1H, and 2) the conductive features 232 comprise a plurality of metals layers.
Huang in view of Hsieh in view of Shih also shows (see, e.g., Hsieh: figs. 15, and 22, and also par. [0060], [0064] – [0066]) that:
The dummy metal patterns 604 comprise second dummy metal patterns 604 in second metal layers 138 of the plurality of metal layers 106/138/146/154
The dummy metal patterns 606A/606B comprise first dummy metal patterns 604 in first metal layers 146 of the plurality of metal layers 106/138/146/154
In the plan view, the second dummy metal patterns 604 in the second metal layer 138 have a second shape (a mesh-shaped dummy patterns)
In the plan view, the first dummy metal patterns 606A/606B in the first metal layer 146 have a first shape (a strip-shaped dummy patterns) different from the second shape
Regarding claim 5, Huang in view of Hsieh in view of Shih shows (see, e.g., Hsieh: figs. 15, and 22, and also par. [0060], [0064] – [0066]) that the first dummy metal patterns 606A are first metal strips 606A having first longitudinal axes extending along a first direction, and the second dummy metal patterns 606B are second metal strips 606B having second longitudinal axes extending along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction.
Huang in view of Hsieh in view of Shih also shows (see, e.g., Hsieh: figs. 15, and 22-23) that first metal strips 606A are physically and electrically isolated from other another, and the second metal strips 606B are physically and electrically isolated from other another.
Regarding claim 6, Huang in view of Hsieh in view of Shih shows (see, e.g., Hsieh: figs. 15, and 22, and also par. [0060], [0064] – [0066]) shows that the dummy metal patterns 604/606A/606B and the conductive lines 106/138/146/154 are in a first plurality of dielectric layers of the dielectric layers, and the vias are in a second plurality of dielectric layers of the dielectric layers, and wherein there is no dummy metal pattern in the metal layers 106/138/146/154 of the vias second plurality of dielectric layers.
Regarding claim 11, Huang in view of Hsieh in view of Shih shows (see, e.g., Huang: figs. 1A-1H, and 2) a second redistribution structure 1231/1232 at the first side of the substrate 121, wherein the second redistribution structure 1231/1232 is between the substrate 121 and the plurality of dies 120. Also, Huang in view of Hsieh shows (see, e.g., Hsieh: figs. 15, and 22, and also par. [0060], [0064] – [0066]) that the second redistribution structure 106/138/146/154 comprises second dummy metal patterns 604/606A/606B.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Hsieh in view of Shih in further view of Kuo (US 2016/0358818).
Regarding claim 2, Huang in view of Hsieh in view of Shih shows (see, e.g., Huang: figs. 1A-1H, and 2) the conductive features 232 comprise a plurality of metals layers.
Huang in view of Hsieh in view of Shih also shows (see, e.g., Hsieh: figs. 15, and 22, and also par. [0060], [0064] – [0066]) that:
The dummy metal patterns 604 are disposed in first metal layers 138 of the plurality of metal layers 106/138/146/154
In a plan view, the dummy metal patterns 604 are island-shaped, striped-shaped, or mesh-shaped
In the plan view, each of the first metal layers 138 has the mesh-shaped dummy metal patterns 604
In the plan view, each of the first metal layers 138 has the strip-shaped dummy metal patterns 606A/606B
The strip-shaped dummy metal patterns 606A/606B comprise discrete portions that are physically and electrically isolated from one another
Huang in view of Hsieh in view of Shih fails (see, e.g., Huang: figs. 1A-1H, and 2, and also see, e.g., Hsieh: figs. 15, and 22, and also par. [0060], [0064] – [0066]) to show that the first metal layers 138 have island-shaped dummy metal patterns. Kuo, in a similar device to Huang in view of Hsieh in view of Shih, shows (see, e.g., Huang: fig. 5) that the first metal layers 180/190 have island-shaped dummy metal patterns 180/190. Kuo further shows (see, e.g., Huang: fig. 5) that such island-shaped dummy metal patterns 180/190 provide a substrate to accumulate more suppressors during the electro-chemical plating (ECP) processing and to influence the grow material at lower rates (see, e.g., Huang: par. [0026]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the island-shaped dummy metal patterns of Kuo in the device of Huang in view of Hsieh in view of Shih, to provide a substrate in order to accumulate more suppressors during the electro-chemical plating (ECP) processing and to influence the grow material at lower rates.
Regarding claim 4, Huang in view of Hsieh in view of Shih shows (see, e.g., Huang: figs. 1A-1H, and 2) the conductive features 232 comprise a plurality of metals layers. Huang in view of Hsieh also shows (see, e.g., Hsieh: figs. 15, and 22, and also par. [0060], [0064] – [0066]) shows, in the plan view, the second dummy metal patterns 604 in the second metal layer 138 that have a second shape (a mesh-shaped dummy patterns) and the first dummy metal patterns 606A/606B in the first metal layer 146 have a first shape (a strip-shaped dummy patterns). Thus, Huang in view of Hsieh in view of Shih also shows that the second shape is a mesh-shape.
Huang in view of Hsieh in view of Shih, however, fails (see, e.g., Hsieh: figs. 15, and 22, and also par. [0060], [0064] – [0066]) that the first shape is an island-shape. Huang in view of Hsieh in view of Shih shows that the first shape is a strip-shape. Kuo, in a similar device to Huang in view of Hsieh in view of Shih, shows (see, e.g., Huang: fig. 5) that the first shape is an island-shape.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use either the island-shape of Kuo or the strip-shape of Huang in view of Hsieh in view of Shih because these were recognized in the semiconductor art for their use as dummy structures, as taught by Huang in view of Hsieh in view of Shih and by Kuo, and selecting between known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Hsieh in view of Shih in further view of Kim (US 2021/0407962).
Regarding claim 21, Huang in view of Hsieh in view of Shih shows (see, e.g., Huang: figs. 1A-1H, and 2) a first width of the first redistribution structure 1231/1232, measured between opposing sidewalls of the first redistribution structure 1231/1232, and a second width of the substrate 121, measured between opposing sidewalls of the substrate 121.
However, Huang in view of Hsieh in view of Shih fails (see, e.g., Huang: figs. 1A-1H, and 2) to show that first width of the first redistribution structure 1231/1232 is smaller than the second width of the substrate 121. Kim, in a similar device to Huang in view of Hsieh in view of Shih shows, shows (see, e.g., Kim: fig. 2) that first width of the first redistribution structure 240/210 is smaller than the second width of the substrate 11. Kim also shows that the first redistribution structure 240/210 and substrate 11 accommodate the vertical connection structure including a first through-hole accommodating the bridge chip and further including a plurality of wiring layers are electrically connected to the other redistribution circuits (see, e.g., Kim: par. [0007]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the first width of the first redistribution structure and the second width of the substrate of Kim in the device of Huang in view of Hsieh in view of Shih, to accommodate the vertical connection structure including a first through-hole accommodating the bridge chip and further including a plurality of wiring layers are electrically connected to the other redistribution circuits.
However, the differences in the first width of the first redistribution structure and the second width of the substrate will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the mentioned widths, and Kim has identified such widths as result-effective variables subject to optimization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these ratio values in the method of Huang in view of Hsieh in view of Shih.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed width values or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 13-16 and 22-25 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Examiner has read and considered Applicants’ arguments, and finds them to be persuasive for claims 7-10, 13-16, and 22-25. However, Applicants’ arguments for claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
The applicants argue:
Huang in view of Hsieh fails to anticipate or render obvious the amended limitation of "… first redistribution structure contacting and extending along a second side of the substrate opposing the first side ", as recited in claims 1.
The examiner responds:
In view of the new grounds of rejection, Shih, in a similar device to Huang in view of Hsieh, shows that the first redistribution structure 710 is in contact and extends along the second side of the substrate 550. Shih further shows that the redistribution structure 710 is formed on the molding compound 550 and on the metal vias 510, and the redistribution structure 710 acts as a back-side (or PCB-side) RDL interposer (see, e.g., Shih: par. [0040]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the redistribution structure contacting and extending along the substrate of Shih, in the device of Huang in view of Huang, to act as a back-side (or PCB-side) RDL interposer.
Conclusion
This action is made final. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire three months from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within two months of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the three-month shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than six months from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIBERIU DAN ONUTA whose telephone number is (571) 270-0074 and between the hours of 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday or by e-mail via Tiberiu.Onuta@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone or email are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be reached on (571) 272-1705.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/TIBERIU DAN ONUTA/Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814